[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Alain Gottcheiner]

David Burn a écrit :
> Similarly, if you "work out partner's intention" at the bridge table, you do
> so at least in part on the basis of agreements (implicit and explicit) that
> your partnership has. These must be explained to the opponents. So says the
> Law, so say John Probst and Grattan Endicott, and so say I.
>   
Partner makes a bid that's unknown to me. I can see at least four 
possible meanings, and can't decide. I tell my opponents : "I don't 
know". I assign to each possible meaning a suit. I pick a card from my 
hand. It happens to be a club, so I assume partner showed such-and-such 
pattern and such-and-such strength. I happen to be right. David, Grattan 
and John tell me I used our implicit agreements. Am I allowed to feel 
uneasy ?

(whether I'm allowed to use an external randomizer is another question)

NB : don't say it can't happen, I know a player who did it at least 
twice. In one of those occurrences he was playing with me. No, no UI, 
there were screens.

Now suppress the randomizing mechanism. Isn't there at least some chance 
that you'd guess correctly *without* resorting to implicit agreements ?



This is a live case : playing with an experienced TD, you hold Jxx - 
10xx - K10xx - Kxx.. LHO : 2S (weak), partner : double. you can't 
remember which answers you use. You can't even remember having discussed 
it either. BTW, you're right. According to your club's tendencies, 2NT 
could be either natural or lebensohl ("mini-cue" is uncommon where you 
live). You're a bit lucky, because you can bid 2NT. If partner takes it 
as natural, that isn't bad (although you'd prefer to hold more than Jxx 
in spades). If he bids 3C in response to your lebensohl, the right bid 
is now 3D. And if he explains 2NT as natural, and bids 3C (1RF according 
to your meta-agreements), the right bid is 3D, too. So you won't use UI.
Partner alerts, bids 3C and you bid 3D, over which he passes. He took it 
as lebensohl. 3D gets you a fair score (-50 vs -110, his double was 
lightish).

- So we play lebensohl ?
- I hadn't the foggiest idea, but I had to guess something, didn't I ?

Would you tell him they did something wrong ?

Another example : over your 1S, partner answers 1NT. You don't know 
whether that's forcing or not (I computed that I use forcing with 
exactly half my partners). Everyody at the table knows that, when you 
explain "I don't know whether it's forcing", you'll decide it is, to 
minimize possible damage. Of course your uncertainty is UI to partner, 
who will have to raise your minor on 4 cards, but do you have to answer 
"forcing" merely because you intend to treat it as such ? Or is "I don't 
know, but I'll say forcing" a legal explanation ?


Best regards

   Alain